Middlesex University Research Repository

An open access repository of

Middlesex University research
http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk

Loucks, Nancy and Holt, Sally Smith and Adler, Joanna R. (2009) Why
we kill: understanding violence across cultures and disciplines. Loucks,
Nancy and Smith Holt, Sally and Adler, Joanna R., eds. Middlesex
University Press, London. ISBN 9781904750420

Available from Middlesex University’s Research Repository at

http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/5013/

Copyright:

Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically.

Copyright and moral rights to this thesis/research project are retained by the author and/or
other copyright owners. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for
commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal,
non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Any use of
the thesis/research project for private study or research must be properly acknowledged with
reference to the work’s full bibliographic details.

This thesis/research project may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive
quotations taken from it, or its content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission
in writing from the copyright holder(s).

If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact
the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address:

eprints@mdx.ac.uk

The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.
why
we

kill
why we

kill
understanding violence across
cultures and disciplines

edited by
Nancy Loucks, Sally Holt
and Joanna R Adler
First published in 2009 by Middlesex University Press
Copyright © $$$$$$$
ISBN 978 1 904750 42 0
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the copyright holder for which application
should be addressed in the first instance to the publishers. No liability shall
be attached to the author, the copyright holder or the publishers for loss or
damage of any nature suffered as a result of reliance on the reproduction of
any of the contents of this publication or any errors or omissions in its
contents.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from
The British Library
Design by Helen Taylor
Printed in the UK by $$$$$$$
Middlesex University Press
Fenella Building
The Burroughs
Hendon
London NW4 4BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 8411 4162
Fax: +44 (0)20 8411 4167
www.mupress.co.uk
 ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS

This book has come together during the course of an

extraordinary number of personal and professional
challenges for all of us. We would therefore like to thank
both our families and especially our participating authors for
their tremendous patience, their perseverance, and for their
faith in the project.We hope our efforts were worthwhile.
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr Joanna R. Adler is a Principal Lecturer in Forensic Psychology. She is the

Postgraduate Programme Leader for MSc Forensic Psychology. She has conducted
research in areas including fear, power, and victimization in prisons; effects of fear
of crime on psychological well-being; intra-familial violence; police stress; the
punishment of young offenders; radicalisation of ‘at risk youth’ and hate crimes.

Dr Rohan Gunaratna is Head of the International Centre for Political Violence

and Terrorism Research, Singapore and Senior Fellow at the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy‘s Jebsen Centre for Counter-Terrorism Studies, Boston. He
also holds several honorary appointments including as Senior Fellow, National
Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Oklahoma; Member of the
Advisory Council, Institute for Counter Terrorism, Israel; and Member, Steering
Committee, George Washington University‘s Homeland Security Policy Institute.
Dr Gunaratna holds a Masters in International Peace Studies from the University
of Notre Dame, US and a doctorate in International Relations from the
University of St Andrews.
Gunaratna is the author of 12 books including Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network
ofTerror, an international bestseller published by Columbia University Press. He also
serves on the editorial boards of Studies in Conflict and Terrorism and Terrorism and
Political Violence, the leading counter-terrorism academic journals. Gunaratna has
over 25 years of academic, policy, and operational experience in counter terrorism.
He led the specialist team that designed and built the UN database on the mobility,
weapons and finance of Al Qaeda,Taliban and their Entities. Invited to testify before
the 9/11 Commission, he debriefed detainees in Asia and the Middle East including
high value detainees in Iraq. A litigation consultant to the United States Justice
Department, he served as the US expert in the Jose Padilla trial.

Prof Lawrence M. Hinman is Professor of Philosophy and Director of theValues

Institute at the University of San Diego, where he also directs the ‘Ethics across
the Curriculum’ program. He is the author of numerous scholarly as well as
popular articles and two books in ethics, Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral
Theory, 3rd Ed. (Wadsworth, 2002) and Contemporary Moral Issues, 3rd ed.
(Prentice-Hall, 2003). His World Wide Web site, Ethics Updates
(http://ethics.acusd.edu) receives over 8,000 visitors a day and has gained
numerous awards.

Prof Peter Hodgkinson, BA (Hons), Cert Qual SW, OBE is Founder and Director
of the Centre for Capital Punishment Studies (CCPS), Westminster University
Law School, London. Prior to joining Westminster in 1989 he was a Probation
Officer with the Inner London Probation and Forensic Social Work Advisor at the
Denis Hill Secure Unit. He was Honorary Secretary, British Society of
Criminology [1978–83]; Newsletter Editor, Division of Criminological and Legal
Psychology, British Psychological Society [1980–84]; Cropwood Fellow, Institute
of Criminology, University of Cambridge [1983]; Member of the Policy Co-
ordinating Group and Council of the Howard League for Penal Reform [1982–
99]; Editorial Board- Journal of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health
[1989–93]; Written Evidence to the House of Commons, Home Affairs Select
Committee on TheYear and a day Rule & the Mandatory Life Sentence [Howard
League 1983]; Member of the Steering Committee to the Death Penalty in
Commonwealth Africa Project, British Institute of International and Comparative
Law [2004–06]. Since 1996 he has been Expert and Adviser on capital punishment
to the Council of Europe and since 1997 a founding member of the Foreign
Secretary’s Death Penalty Panel, working closely with governments and NGOs
internationally. He is also an advisor to the Council of Europe on prison issues.
In 2004 he was appointed OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for his work
promoting human rights.
Professor Hodgkinson has written and published extensively on capital
punishment scholarship and its applied relationship to penal policy and practice
including Capital Punishment: Global issues and prospects (Hodgkinson &
Rutherford, eds.), Waterside Press 1996: Capital Punishment in the USA,
Hodgkinson et alia, UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group, 1996 and with
Schabas (eds.), Capital Punishment: strategies for abolition, Cambridge University
Press, 2003.

Seema Kandelia LLB (Hons), LL.M joined the Centre for Capital Punishment
Studies in 2003 as a postgraduate researcher. Her main areas of focus included
research into the issues surrounding victims and the death penalty, public
reassurance and alternatives to capital punishment. She also monitored capital
punishment developments in the USA, the Philippines, the Middle East and
Africa, and worked on issues such as juveniles, mental retardation and innocence.
Seema now works as a Lecturer and Research Fellow for the Law School at the
University of Westminster.

Dr Maria Kaspersson is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the School of

Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Greenwich. She graduated with a
PhD in Criminology from Stockholm University with a thesis on homicide and
infanticide in Stockholm. Her current research has involved honour-related
violence, the Swedish Prostitution Law and changes in homicide from the 16th
to the 20th century. Publications include ‘The Great Murder Mystery‘ in
Comparative Histories of Crime (Dunstall, Emsley & Godfrey, eds.,Willan Publishing,
2003) and ‘Homicide and Infanticide in Stockholm 1920–1939‘ in Journal of
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2003.
Dr Nancy Loucks works as an independent criminologist in Scotland and
specialises in prison policy and comparative penology. Her work has included
extensive research in criminology including the imprisonment of women, aspects
of prison discipline and control, violence and bullying, use of drugs and alcohol,
suicides and self-injury, and the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ families.
Other projects have included research into the employment of people with a
criminal record in the European Union, human rights aspects of religious
communities in prisons, and risk assessment of serious sexual and violent
offenders.

Kay Nooney is a forensic psychologist in HM Prison Service for England and

Wales. Her earlier areas of work have included research management and
operational research in Prison Service Headquarters. Her work in a London
prison specialised in interventions with HIV prisoners, sex offenders and prisoners
in crisis. The work in prison was followed by development and evaluation of
offending behaviour programmes in prison and the community. She is currently
part of the Safer Custody Group in the Prison Service Headquarters, which is
concerned with deaths, self-harm and violence in prison custody.

Rupa Reddy LLB (Hons), LL.M was formerly postgraduate researcher at the
Centre for Capital Punishment Studies (2002–06) responsible for research on use
of the death penalty within the British Commonwealth Caribbean and the Indian
subcontinent; as well as research on the issues of gender, race, religion, mental
illness and the role of psychiatrists in relation to capital punishment. Rupa also
edited the first two volumes of the Centre’s Occasional Paper Series journal. She
is currently undertaking PhD research at the School of Oriental and African
Studies on honour-related violence within UK ethnic minority communities.

Dr Stephen Smith is the co-founder of Britain’s first Holocaust Memorial, Beth

Shalom, and of the Aegis Genocide Prevention Initiative. He writes and lectures
frequently on Holocaust and Genocide studies, and his particular area of
specialisation is memorialisation and witness testimony. His awards include an
MBE in 2000 and the Interfaith Gold Medallion the same year. Dr Smith edits a
continuing series of survivor testimonies (published by Quill Press, 2000–01) and
is writer/director of the film documentaries Wasted Lives (2000), Survivors:
Memories for the Past, Lessons for the Future (2001), and Britain and the Holocaust
(2002). Recent publications include Forgotten Places:The Holocaust and the Remnants
of Destruction, The Holocaust and the Christian World, and Making Memory: Creating
Britain’s First Holocaust Centre.
During the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, Dr Smith directed the East Midlands
Kosovo Appeal. A member of the International task Force on Holocaust
Education (Sweden), he works closely with Holocaust projects in Lithuania,
Sweden, and the United States. He is Consultant to South Africa’s Cape Town
Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Dr Sally Smith Holt is an Associate Professor of Religion. She graduated with a

PhD in ethics, society and religion fromVanderbilt University. She is interested in
sociology of religion and related issues of justice. Recent projects have included
research into women’s groups and their involvement with fundamentalist religious
systems and also research considering just treatment of animals, farming and
environmental ethics. Many of the courses she teaches are interdisciplinary, and she
has conducted work in the area of capital punishment studies.

Prof Daya J. Somasundaram is the Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of

Medicine, University of Jaffna and Consultant Psychiatrist at the Teaching
Hospital, Jaffna, Sri Lanka. During his sabbatical leave he worked in Cambodia on
a Community Mental Health Programme for the Transcultural Psychosocial
Organization (TPO) based in Amsterdam. His research interests include trauma
about which he has published papers in international journals and written several
books, including Scarred Minds – the psychological impact of war on Sri LankanTamils.
He was instrumental in the adaptation of the WHO manual, Mental Health of
Refugees, to the Cambodian context as Community Mental Health in Cambodia and
to the Tamil context as Mental Health in the Tamil Community.These manuals are
being used to train grass-roots workers in simple psychosocial skills.

Prof Keith Soothill is Emeritus Professor of Social Research and is currently

attached to the Centre for Applied Statistics at Lancaster University. His current
research interests are in the areas of homicide, sex offending, criminal careers and
crime and the media. He taught criminology for over 30 years with well over
200 publications. He wants criminologists to appreciate the links with other
disciplines and not to be too narrowly focused. He co-authored the book, Making
Sense of Criminology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002), the monograph, Murder and
serious sexual assault: What criminal histories can reveal about future serious offending
(London: Home Office 2002) and co-edited Handbook of Forensic Mental Health
(Willan, 2008). His writings on serial killing began with the article, ‘The Serial
Killer Industry’, in the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry in 1993, and he has
subsequently made several contributions in this area.
 Table of Contents

Introduction
Religion, Culture, and Killing
Sally Smith Holt, Nancy Loucks, and Joanna R. Adler ................. 1

1 ‘You Always Hurt the One You Love’: Homicide in a

Domestic Context
Maria Kaspersson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$

2 Serial Killing
Keith Soothill ................................................................ $$

3 Capital Punishment: Creating More Victims?

Peter Hodgkinson, Seema Kandelia, and Rupa Reddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

4 Abortion: Understanding the Moral Issues

Lawrence M. Hinman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

5 Euthanasia: An Introduction to the Moral Issues

Lawrence M. Hinman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

6 Suicide
Kay Nooney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

7 Terrorism: A Unique Form of Political Violence

Rohan Guneratna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

8 Collective Violence and War

Daya Somasundaram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

9 Massacre at Murambi – The Rank and File Killers of Genocide

Stephen Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$$

Epilogue
Why We Kill
Nancy Loucks, Sally Holt, and Joanna R. Adler ......................... $$$
 Introduction: Religion, Culture
and Killing
Sally Smith Holt, Nancy Loucks, and Joanna R. Adler

Whether consciously or unconsciously, people use ethical language every day.

We consider what is ‘right’ and ’good’ and think about our ‘duty’ even if we
do not consider specific ethical categories such as virtue, ethics, utilitarianism
or deontology. We determine how to judge ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ actions and
attempt to put together, even if informally, a code of ethics by which to live.
In this text, we look specifically at the act of killing by exploring the ethics of
this action, taking an interdisciplinary approach to offer the most
comprehensive method for discussing the topic.The book deals with a number
of types of killing, often considering religious and cultural factors.Throughout,
we seek to build up a complex set of answers to the deceptively simple
question of why we kill.
Why We Kill may seem a particularly topical book in view of recent world
events, not least the attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 11
September 2001, the taking and killing of hostages in Beslan (2004), the
terrorist attacks in Madrid (2004), London (2005), and Glasgow (2007).
However, planning for the book was well underway before any of these events.
They gave an added incentive for publication, but the initial seed had been
planted years before, as we thought about how our ethical questions regarding
killing could straddle societal and academic boundaries.The questions we ask
ourselves and the answers we come to live by should be asked of any era.What
wisdom do we draw upon from the past, and how do our contemporary
contexts shape us? We believe the answers, or at least the attempt to formulate
answers, to such questions are multilayered and complex. Whether the
approaches to ethical decision making we use when considering the act of
killing are philosophical in orientation or involve a religious component,
questions about killing are fraught with difficulty. Let us begin, for example,
with the Biblical prohibition against killing found in the Hebrew texts.
Virtually every religion and culture has an equivalent to the Biblical
commandment,‘Thou shalt not kill’ – but how consistent is this prohibition?
Even within one particular religious or cultural system, some instances seem
to allow killing while others do not; confusion and debate exists over when
and how killing should occur. For example,‘Thou shalt not kill,’ a prohibition
found in more than one location within the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Exodus 20:13,
Deuteronomy 5:17) does not appear to prohibit all killing. Killing by the state
for punishment and warfare are generally condoned throughout this religious
1
 WHY WE KILL

text, while the aforementioned prohibition on killing seems to address only

outright murder and careless or accidental killing.
In cases of murder and accidental killing, the suggested response is often
killing the killer, theoretically because this response restores balance to society.
If someone murders, or even kills accidentally, reciprocity demands a response
of killing.This may be an act that preserved imago Dei, supporting the idea that
all life belongs to God. It may have limited blood vengeance: only one life
could be taken in response to the killing of an individual. Most biblical scholars
concur that both prohibitions against killing and mandates that demand killing
are biblical statements that sought to limit vengeance and retaliation and to
preserve the idea that life is sacred.Worthy of note is that the Jewish Talmud is
very clear that the Sanhedrin took great pains to avoid implementing the death
penalty (Mishnah Makkot 1:10).1 Even within a single religious tradition,
conversations about killing are not as clear cut as they may at first appear.
Dr John Kelsay, a noted academic of religious ethics, prefers to translate
‘Thou shalt not kill’ using the term ‘murder’ rather than ‘kill’. Homicide is
certainly the only form of killing that seems to attract universal disapprobation,
but as we seek to define homicide or murder, we realise that even here we have
problems in identifying the boundaries. Abortion, suicide, euthanasia and
capital punishment are among a number of methods of killing that attract titles
both of ‘murder’ and more sanitised nomenclature, depending on the
perspective of the audience. Further, should these debates be limited to
consideration of human beings? Some animal rights groups apply the idea of
homicide to acts against other animals, as demonstrated by the slogan,‘meat is
murder’. Noted British theologian and ethicist Andrew Linzey holds that we
do not have the right to kill animals because life is not ours for the taking: life
belongs to God. What and who determines whether one form of killing is
acceptable while another is morally reprehensible?
In this book, we examine specific instances of killing people and analyse
these with the intention of informing readers, ideally encouraging an
examination of our own ethical beliefs. One may take comfort in separating
‘good’ people from ‘bad’ people (Zimbardo 2007), but such separation is not
as straightforward as it may at first appear. Zimbardo suggests an alternative
conception of evil ‘in incrementalist terms, as something of which we are all
capable, depending on circumstances’ (ibid.: 7, emphasis in original). He
explains that his research into human behaviour in the Stanford Prison
Experiment (1972) showed that ‘The line between Good and Evil, once
thought to be impermeable, proved instead to be quite permeable’ (2007: 195).

1 “A Sanhedrin that puts one person to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer
ben Azariah says: Or even once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: Had we been the
Sanhedrin, none would ever have been put to death.” Mishnah Makkot, 1:10

2
 INTRODUCTION – RELIGION, CULTURE,AND KILLING

Early experiments such as those by Stanley Milgram (1974) show that

virtually all of us are willing to behave in ways we never thought possible,
given the right context or authoritative instruction. Events such as the
Holocaust and the massacre at My Lai bring this aspect of human behaviour
into sharp relief. How many of us can realistically believe that we would never
support or facilitate the act of killing? We may not view ourselves as breaking
any moral law; we may not go out and kill people we see on the street nor
define ourselves as ‘killers,’ but we can be caught in complex, often confusing
social interactions regarding the act.
The topics for this book were chosen specifically to encourage thought
about such questions and to deal with such inconsistencies.We invited authors
across social science and humanities disciplines to contribute, as we wished to
share the approaches of different disciplines and to facilitate trans-theoretical
debate.The editors come from distinct theoretical backgrounds and have been
motivated to find synergy in drawing on each other’s strengths, and on how
similar our techniques can be, despite the different language we adopt.
Notwithstanding this, we recognise the complexity of both intra-
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary debate, particularly in topics as potentially
emotive and politically charged as those we consider here. In defence of such
an approach, Zimbardo notes that:

…most psychologists have been insensitive to the deeper sources of power

that inhere in the political, economic, religious, historic, and cultural matrix
that defines situations and gives them legitimate or illegitimate existence.
A full understanding of the dynamics of human behavior requires that we
recognize the extent and limits of personal power, situational power, and
systemic power.
(2007: x)

We hope that readers will embrace the challenges posed herein and will agree
that this varied approach benefits rather than detracts from the text.We believe
the book will remain relevant in years to come as the topics and the manner
in which they are discussed contribute to present and future debates in this
field.
Governments have killed for thousands of years, while at the same time
their laws have prohibited individuals from taking similar actions, under most
circumstances.A report by Amnesty International (1989) called When the State
Kills – a title later used in other publications on capital punishment including
Sarat (2002), emphasised the inconsistency between teaching people that
killing is wrong whilst making it an acceptable action when the faceless entity
of ‘the state’ does it for us. How do we deal with these inconsistencies? In the
United States, the Supreme Court often cites evolving standards of decency

3
 WHY WE KILL

as one way to provide such answers. Its decision in 2005 to prohibit capital
punishment for those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes
is one example of such action.2 However the United States is one of the very
few Western countries that continues to utilise capital punishment at all. Are
further discrepancies at work here?
Another dilemma that did not confront our predecessors involves advances
in medical technology. The euthanasia case of Terri Schiavo provides an
example that is relatively new to us (see Chapter 5). Medical advances now
allow us to keep individuals alive who would otherwise die, so was Schiavo
allowed to die or was she killed? Similarly, in France Chantal Sebire petitioned
for the right to die due to a rare illness that left her face disfigured and caused
extreme pain, yet her government denied her wish.Was this morally correct?
Unlike Schiavo, Sebire did not suffer mental incapacitation and reasoned that
she had the right to choose death. French law disagreed.
This book examines these and other dilemmas. Why do some people
condone abortion yet oppose the death penalty? Why do some condemn
suicide yet view the death of suicide bombers as martyrdom? What compels
people to take hundreds of schoolchildren and their families hostage in Beslan,
draping them in fuse wire and detonators (McAllister and Quinn-Judge 2004)?
How could anyone strap explosive devices to two women with learning
difficulties and blow them up, along with over 90 bystanders in a crowded
Baghdad market (Fletcher 2008)? Why do ordinary people participate in such
extraordinary acts of violence and killing as the Rwandan Genocide
(www.rwanda-genocide.org)? What does this say about us collectively and
individually?
At first glance, the varied types of killing seem largely unrelated, despite the
common outcome.We argue that all of us have the potential to kill; many if
not most of us probably condone it in some form or another, depending on
how we define it and justify it according to our moral code. This is the
common thread: something about a moral code, a religious or ethical belief
enmeshed within a cultural context, determines one’s stance on various types
of killing and, indeed, on inhibitors to killing. Further, social context and
circumstances can challenge this stance beyond what each individual ever
thought possible.
This book intends to address the violence of killing in its contextual, multi-
layered and complex manifestations, taking into account how culture plays a
pivotal role in understanding violent action yet also remembering the peaceful
emphases of various religious and cultural traditions. Each chapter begins with
a brief introduction from the editors to help tie the themes together. The

2 Roper v Simmons (03-633) 543 US 551 (2005) 112 SW 3d.

4
 INTRODUCTION – RELIGION, CULTURE,AND KILLING

chapters discuss various forms of killing and reasons behind these, moving
through the spectrum of those which attract universal approbation (for
example homicide, serial killing) to those protected by law (capital
punishment, abortion) to those that are even venerated (killing in the context
of war).
The epilogue draws the themes from the book together, this time with the
benefit of the examples put forward in each chapter. We again discuss the
common thread we highlighted at the outset: that religious or ethical belief
enmeshed within a cultural context determines one’s stance on various types
of killing and, indeed, on inhibitors to killing. In this attempt to answer the
question of why we kill, we do not expect to resolve these differences in moral
or religious belief. Rather we hope to increase understanding of them and, in
turn, to encourage an examination of our own beliefs.

References
Amnesty International (1989) When the State Kills: The Death Penalty – A Human Rights Issue,
Briefing 1989. Amnesty International.
Fedler, K. D. (2006) Exploring Christian Ethics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Fletcher, M. (2008) ‘Down’s Syndrome bombers kill 91’. The Times 2 February 2008,
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3287373.ece.
Linzey, A. (1999) Animal Gospel. Westminster: John Knox Press.
McAllister, J. F. O. and Quinn-Judge, P. (2004) ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’. TIMEeurope Magazine
4 September 2004, www.time.com/time/europe/html/040913/story.html.
Milgram, S. (1974), Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.
Roig-Franzia, M. (2005) Schiavo’s Feeding Tube Is Removed: Congressional Leaders’ Legal
Manoeuvring Fails to Stop Judge‘s Order. Washington Post, 19.03.05.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46505-2005Mar18.html (accessed, March, 2008).
Sarat, A. (2002) When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Zimbardo, P. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. London: Rider.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1972) The Stanford Prison Experiment a Simulation Study of the Psychology of
Imprisonment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Inc.